another dumb question

[nealjpage]

So, I've seen some discussion around here about 120 and 220 film. What's the difference? I've used 120 before in my Yashica; I also think it takes 220, but I don't have it with me to check Is it simply the length of the film, meaning that one can get more shots on a roll?

 

[Azuth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

 

[KevinR]

You got it. Just twice the length of 120.

 

[ksmattfish]

220 is twice as long, and doesn't have the light proof paper backing that 120 has. Oh yeah, and it's being discontinued left and right.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Probably being discontinued because it was a pain in the butt. All 120 film is hard to load when in a hurry. I expect most every photographer had screwed one up now and then. I dropped an exposed 220 roll once at a wedding. It was the last roll I ever bought. I had to reshoot twice as many shot.

I also never came out even with the last roll at a wedding. Just went against my grain to develop a roll of 220 film with three shots on it. Especially back in the days when a pro lab charged the same thing per roll no matter how many prints they made from it. like 15 bucks almost for three 4x5 pictures. If that was all you shot in the end.